Sampras Serve or Federer Forehand?

Sampras Serve

Federer Forehand

The Scenario - You are a young, up and coming player on the ATP Tour. Analysts have put you on their 'one to watch' list, however, they feel you don't posses any major 'weapons', and this could hold you back from being a top player. Disheartened by this news, you trudge off in the rain with no destination in mind, and as the Sun starts to disappear over the horizon and the night sets in, you are approached by a mysterious figure. He gives you the opportunity to possess either Sampras' serve or Federer's forehand for the rest of your career.

Federer is unusually good at taking care of big serves, look at how a great returner like Djokovic fared against Roddick's serve. Roddick hits the serve bigger and has a very good 2nd serve (maybe not as good as Sampras but still one of the best ever) and most importantly he gets a way higher percentage of first serves in than Sampras.

You would take Chardy's forehand over Sampras' serve or Federer's forehand?

Click to expand...

I was only half-joking. I mean, I don't actually think that Federer has any one single shot that is the best in the world. He's just simply world-class at everything he does, except converting break points. But Chardy has a marvelous forehand, and based on my understanding of human anatomy, the apparent length of his arms gives hims a physical advantage in producing the forehand over Federer. They look longer than average don't they? Or is it just me...

Anyway, I think Chardy has a better than 40% chance to beat Murray in the quarters. I think he can honestly hit Murray off the court if he can maintain his current form.

Federer's forehand is contingent on so many things, how fast the ball is coming at him, how much spin the ball has as it comes at him, where he is positioned on the court at the time of impact and where his opponent is positioned.

Federer's forehand is contingent on so many things, how fast the ball is coming at him, how much spin the ball has as it comes at him, where he is positioned on the court at the time of impact and where his opponent is positioned.

part of what makes Fed's forehand so great is his footwork, balance, and speed. If you woke up tomorrow with Fed's forehand, you wouldn't actually be hitting his forehand, save for some short midcourt shots.

part of what makes Fed's forehand so great is his footwork, balance, and speed. If you woke up tomorrow with Fed's forehand, you wouldn't actually be hitting his forehand, save for some short midcourt shots.

Click to expand...

Yup, many people fail to separate movement and the shot, if I couldn't glide on court like Fed, as a pro Pete's serve would be much more useful to me.

Pete's serve because the serve is the only stroke where you're not affected by the opponent. You may have Fed's forehand but if your footwork, agility and speed aren't as good as his then you won't get similar result. The serve is also the most important stroke imo, so I'd think having an amazing serve would help me win more than having an amazing forehand.

Pete's serve because the serve is the only stroke where you're not affected by the opponent. You may have Fed's forehand but if your footwork, agility and speed aren't as good as his then you won't get similar result. The serve is also the most important stroke imo, so I'd think having an amazing serve would help me win more than having an amazing forehand.

Click to expand...

that's like saying you may have Pete's serve, but if you don't have Pete's shoulders, you won't get similar result.

If the serve is the most important stroke, hundreds of clay courters in the 90s must've missed the memo. or Agassi, when he won his 8 slams.

Forehand. Canbe played during every single point. Serve is only used when you're serving sohalf of the time it doesn't even come into play. GOAT forehand too

Click to expand...

plus these days on slower surfaces, the serve is less crucial than it used to be. You can get away with an average serve if your ground strokes are deadly and reliable. On the other hand a great serve and you end up playing many tiebreaks and probably losing them.

Federer is unusually good at taking care of big serves, look at how a great returner like Djokovic fared against Roddick's serve. Roddick hits the serve bigger and has a very good 2nd serve (maybe not as good as Sampras but still one of the best ever) and most importantly he gets a way higher percentage of first serves in than Sampras.

Click to expand...

i believe roddick wound up with a higher career hold % than pete.

that, with an all-around game that was nowhere near as good as pete's.

in an era where the quality of returning has without question gotten much better.

Nadal and federer in their younger days had barely passable backhands - these wings could be broken down. Federer would constantly slice and nadal would hit short backhands to get clobbered. Still they achieved very good results compared to serve only players.

In reality, an fh reliant player is going to have more success than a serve reliant player. In theory - having a serve seems better, but there are very few examples of players having a fh but absolutely no bh.

Nadal and federer in their younger days had barely passable backhands - these wings could be broken down. Federer would constantly slice and nadal would hit short backhands to get clobbered. Still they achieved very good results compared to serve only players.

In reality, an fh reliant player is going to have more success than a serve reliant player. In theory - having a serve seems better, but there are very few examples of players having a fh but absolutely no bh.

Click to expand...

Karlovic is a really bad example.
He may have a big O serve, but his physicall abilities and technique are bounded by his height.

Take an Ivanisevic and Sampras serve.
You don't even need to hit an ace, a half decent, well placed serve getting returned weak is all you need.
The rest is just a compulsive putaway.

that's like saying you may have Pete's serve, but if you don't have Pete's shoulders, you won't get similar result.

If the serve is the most important stroke, hundreds of clay courters in the 90s must've missed the memo. or Agassi, when he won his 8 slams.

Click to expand...

That's not the same thing. I didn't say you can't hit Fed's forehand because you have weak arms, I said you don't have the foot speed to hit forehands all the time. Now when I think about being gifted Fed's forehand, I don't imagine I'd be gifted his speed and footwork as well. There are just a skill sets needed to use a good forehand effectively. Shot selection for example, knowing what kind of forehands to hit, how hard. I feel a serve is more straight forward.
A lot of posters here are underestimating the benefits of having a great serve. Yes you only serve during a service game and you only hit the serve at the beginning of a point but it will reward you with a huge amount of free point. People say Raonic and Isner and Karlovic don't get anywhere with their serve. That's because the rest of their game are really average. Bad return of serve, very bad movement, inconsistent groundstrokes, and they don't even come to the net that much behind that big serve. If anything, it's amazing they got to where they are with that serve.
On clay the serve is probably not as important as physical fitness and consistency but it's still very helpful. How else was Isner able to beat Federer at Davis Cup and take Nadal to five sets at the French? My knowledge of 90's tennis isn't that great but I'd assume those clay specialists didn't make that much impact outside of clay.
Now with all that being said, I think think Fed's forehand is the best one I've ever seen and I modeled mine after his.

He's 6'4". And although his serve was monstrous, he was also a bit double-fault prone, unlike Roddick. In his career, Ivanisevic hit 10,183 aces and 3,572 double faults, and held 86% of his service games. Roddick hit 9,074 aces and 1,585 double faults, and held 90% of his service games. Roddick was the better server.

That's not the same thing. I didn't say you can't hit Fed's forehand because you have weak arms, I said you don't have the foot speed to hit forehands all the time. Now when I think about being gifted Fed's forehand, I don't imagine I'd be gifted his speed and footwork as well. There are just a skill sets needed to use a good forehand effectively. Shot selection for example, knowing what kind of forehands to hit, how hard. I feel a serve is more straight forward.
A lot of posters here are underestimating the benefits of having a great serve. Yes you only serve during a service game and you only hit the serve at the beginning of a point but it will reward you with a huge amount of free point. People say Raonic and Isner and Karlovic don't get anywhere with their serve. That's because the rest of their game are really average. Bad return of serve, very bad movement, inconsistent groundstrokes, and they don't even come to the net that much behind that big serve. If anything, it's amazing they got to where they are with that serve.
On clay the serve is probably not as important as physical fitness and consistency but it's still very helpful. How else was Isner able to beat Federer at Davis Cup and take Nadal to five sets at the French? My knowledge of 90's tennis isn't that great but I'd assume those clay specialists didn't make that much impact outside of clay.
Now with all that being said, I think think Fed's forehand is the best one I've ever seen and I modeled mine after his.

Click to expand...

But if your strategy is to hold serve and win the tie-break, then you should rather go with Karlovic, Raonic, or any -ic serve. Because if you consider that to use properly a Federer forehand, you need to have his footwork and his shot selection, then you also need to have Sampras serve selection (and mental fortitude) to use it properly, as well as the game to back up this serve, which also was great to set-up points. With Karlovic's you don't really need shot selection. You just have to execute well, and if you do, even if Agassi or Djokovic know exactly where it will land, they can't do a lot about it.

Nadal and federer in their younger days had barely passable backhands - these wings could be broken down. Federer would constantly slice and nadal would hit short backhands to get clobbered. Still they achieved very good results compared to serve only players.

In reality, an fh reliant player is going to have more success than a serve reliant player. In theory - having a serve seems better, but there are very few examples of players having a fh but absolutely no bh.

Click to expand...

Read the OP again, we ain't talking just a serve, we are talking Pete's serve. You know, Pete Sampras, the guy that could serve you to love with just 4 strokes aka 4 straight aces or who could get out of 0-40 with his next 5strokes.

All this rubbish about Roddick or Ivanisevic having better serves than Sampras is the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. They may have had faster serves, but they didn't have the placement, or the disguise, or the second serve or that x factor, the clutch serve.

But if your strategy is to hold serve and win the tie-break, then you should rather go with Karlovic, Raonic, or any -ic serve. Because if you consider that to use properly a Federer forehand, you need to have his footwork and his shot selection, then you also need to have Sampras serve selection (and mental fortitude) to use it properly, as well as the game to back up this serve, which also was great to set-up points. With Karlovic's you don't really need shot selection. You just have to execute well, and if you do, even if Agassi or Djokovic know exactly where it will land, they can't do a lot about it.

Click to expand...

Yea I haven't even watched any Sampras match so I would also take a Raonic/Karlovic serve. It's just that Sampras was mentioned in the OP and I wanted to make the point that it's better to have a great serve than a great forehand.